Copyright traps on maps

[ok doser]

Your premise is wrong.

If someone buys a book, they buy a licence to read that book. The author of the book owns the rights to produce that book, without anyone being able to copy his work and claim it as his own, because that would be theft, of not only the book that was produced, but also of the author's time, the amount of his life that he spent writing, producing, and selling that book. It would literally be a theft of the author's LIFE! And God is EXPLICITLY CLEAR about man's right his life, that no man (not talking about government here, which is a whole other can of worms) has the right to take it from him.

That is what TRUE copyright law should be based upon.

When genetic sequencing technology was first being developed 20 years ago or so there was a lot of controversy over copywriting gene sequences. It was an issue that affected the company that I worked for because we wanted to produce a diagnostic device for different particular types of cancers, that would rely on looking for genetic markers that had been copyrighted by other researchers. Ultimately our business decided not to go in that direction because we couldn't buy the copyrights outright, we would have had to pay royalties.

Haven't thought of this in years, I'm out of that business, that part of my career path, that part of my life. I wonder if it's become more or less of a tangled mess now that gene sequencing technology is advanced to the stage where it is now, where they're teaching it in Junior High.

 

[ok doser]

A similar circumstance arose 100 years ago or more when a man named Robertson developed what we know now as the square drive screw head. Henry Ford wanted to buy the patent for it, to speed up the assembly process in his manufacturing plants. Robertson wasn't willing to sell it, but was willing to license it to Ford. Ford declined, and the Robertson head screw never really took off in the American market until about 30 or 40 years ago. In Canada it was ubiquitous.

 

[ok doser]

When genetic sequencing technology was first being developed 20 years ago or so there was a lot of controversy over copywriting gene sequences. It was an issue that affected the company that I worked for because we wanted to produce a diagnostic device for different particular types of cancers, that would rely on looking for genetic markers that had been copyrighted by other researchers. Ultimately our business decided not to go in that direction because we couldn't buy the copyrights outright, we would have had to pay royalties.

Haven't thought of this in years, I'm out of that business, that part of my career path, that part of my life. I wonder if it's become more or less of a tangled mess now that gene sequencing technology is advanced to the stage where it is now, where they're teaching it in Junior High.

I just realized that this was back when I was pre-med, between my two kids births.

30 years ago

 

[JudgeRightly]

The greedy and selfish wouldn't.

How about the people who aren't greedy and selfish, but just want to provide for themselves and their family?

Or, share good things that you are able to because it is the right thing to do.

Imagine two men alone on an island.

They could offer their services (perhaps one is a good builder, while the other is a good cook) to one another willingly. But that only works if the other person needs that service. Let's say the builder builds himself a house, and tells the other man that he will build him a house with no expectation of getting anything in return. The cook, delighted by this, agrees, and so the builder builds him a house.

Later, the cook, after making himself a meal, hears the builder's stomach growling, and offers to make him a meal, for free, no expectation of getting anything in return, and the builder accepts.

The next morning, the cook realizes that he can't cook his way out of a paper bag, so he asks the cook if he can have another meal.

The cook (being a terrible builder), realizing that they both can provide a service that the other cannot, offers to cook for the builder (and of course himself), in exchange for being able to ask the builder to build him anything he wants (within reason), for the duration of their stay on the island, up to and including building a boat to get off of it.

The builder agrees, and so the islands first economy is born, the cook providing meals to the builder, in exchange for the builder building things for the cook.

That's how economies function.
Give and take.

You cannot have a functioning economy only based off of selflessness and giving. There must be a transaction that occurs.

It is better to give than receive.

No one has argued otherwise, but people cannot survive off of only giving. Society is built on mutually beneficial relationships.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Yes, but not money itself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There it's nothing wrong with only sharing an idea if someone pays for it.

It's not sharing the idea. It's sharing ACCESS to that idea. You do not have the right to take my idea and claim it as your own. I have the right to restrict access to my idea to only those who pay for it. If someone gains access to my idea without paying for it, it's called theft, because it's taking what they have not earned.

But since ideas are not scarce in an economic sense someone else can have the same idea and then you won't be able to profit from it anymore.

It's not like there has not been any precedent for this.

There have been multiple incidents in history where two people came up with the same idea independently of each other. They BOTH have the right to that idea. But that doesn't mean therefore that other people also have the right to that idea, it still belongs to both of the originators, not anyone else.

When this was argued before, someone said we'd never have the software we have today without copyright. But don't people need the things software provides?

No, not in the purest sense of the word.

Software is a tool to make things easier. People can (or at least, used to be able to) get by without that software.

Can one think of a scenario where they wouldn't have that need fulfilled even if they paid directly for it?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, could you rephrase the question?

 

[Hoping]

Don't be silly. If Gentiles are not responsible for keeping the law then how are they to be judged for their sins? Gentiles know what is right and wrong because they have consciences just like everyone else. The Bible says the law is written in their hearts.

Romans 2:14-16​

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:​

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another​

The unconverted will be judged on/by the conscience, without the Law's input.
That is what Rahab did.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The unconverted will be judged on/by the conscience, without the Law's input.
That is what Rahab did.

By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace. - Hebrews 11:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:31&version=NKJV

 

[Yorzhik]

Your premise is wrong.

If someone buys a book, they buy a licence to read that book. The author of the book owns the rights to produce that book, without anyone being able to copy his work and claim it as his own, because that would be theft, of not only the book that was produced, but also of the author's time, the amount of his life that he spent writing, producing, and selling that book. It would literally be a theft of the author's LIFE! And God is EXPLICITLY CLEAR about man's right his life, that no man (not talking about government here, which is a whole other can of worms) has the right to take it from him.

That is what TRUE copyright law should be based upon.

IS based on.

No, your premise is wrong. A license is a two way contract, and if the buyer doesn't agree to the contract it's up to the *seller* not to sell. And beyond that it's up to the seller to get *positive* agreement to the contract. In other words, if the seller doesn't get a kind of signature he has no right to enforce the contract. That's the practical reason copyright is a bad idea.

There are a number of areas where copyright doesn't apply. Fashion is one of those areas. People make good livings in fashion so to say it is one's life that depends on copyright is just wrong. The economy, people's livelihoods, would be fine without copyright although the economy would be different. In fact the economy, people's livelihoods, would be more robust without copyright.

To highlight the problem of copyright, ownership is extremely important to God. If you own something then you have control over it. With copyrights one loses control over their physical property because copyrights, if they exist, must take precedence over physical property.

 

[Yorzhik]

It's not sharing the idea. It's sharing ACCESS to that idea. You do not have the right to take my idea and claim it as your own. I have the right to restrict access to my idea to only those who pay for it. If someone gains access to my idea without paying for it, it's called theft, because it's taking what they have not earned.

Actually sharing (transferring, selling, and other synonyms) an idea that is purchased is common. It's the norm in companies.

It's not like there has not been any precedent for this.

There have been multiple incidents in history where two people came up with the same idea independently of each other. They BOTH have the right to that idea. But that doesn't mean therefore that other people also have the right to that idea, it still belongs to both of the originators, not anyone else.

No, they don't both have the right to the idea. The government decides who gets the idea.

No, not in the purest sense of the word.

Software is a tool to make things easier. People can (or at least, used to be able to) get by without that software.

But people not only want to make things easier, they need to make things easier. So, without copyright, they would still make software they want or need.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, could you rephrase the question?

People will get their needs fulfilled even if they pay for it knowing other people will get the idea for a lower cost. Why wouldn't they? It's just a cost benefit analysis.